Incorrect. It is the code used for future reference so they know what wound/injury etc. they are talking about. There is no code for 'possibly broken nose'.

The diagnosis by the licensed physician says 'likely' broken nose. When/if he testifies at trial, he's going to say it was 'likely', not 'definitely/conclusively' broken.I'm glad you agree that we should trust the licensed physician's words.

I've had broken noses before. You can bet your damn life I'd want it looked it - it hurts like hell. It hurts to talk, it hurts to breathe. George didn't seem all that bothered. Maybe he just has a high threshold for pain.

I posted the link to the medical report. It uses the ICD code 802.0, which is the code for "Closed fracture of nasal bones". That was the doctor's diagnosis. It is a billable code. He would be committing fraud if he diagnosed it when it didn't exist.

His notes discuss seeing an ENT because doctors often want a second opinion from a specialist. That is where he uses the word "likely". That's not a diagnosis. It's advice to a patient on what follow up treatment he should seek.

I broke my nose a while back. (Passed out from a medical condition and landed face first in a parking lot.) There was no pain at all, even when the ENTs were probing inside my nose with their fingers. I never took any pain medication. If you saw the pictures, you'd wince, but I never took any pain medication.

People are different. Just because your broken nose hurt like hell doesn't mean that everyone else's will or even has to. Basing your opinions on personal experience is a way to form incorrect opinions.

I've had broken noses before. You can bet your damn life I'd want it looked it - it hurts like hell. It hurts to talk, it hurts to breathe. George didn't seem all that bothered. Maybe he just has a high threshold for pain.

I don't believe you. I don't believe you one bit.

My nose has been broken...well, it's well into the double digits. Including one car wreck that broke my neck and my nose in three places. Not only did it not hurt, it didn't bleed.

Maybe George does have a high threshold of pain. Maybe I do too. Maybe you're just a sissy type. Or maybe you're just not being honest about things.

And besides--noses are like ribs. There's really not all that much they can do for it anyway.

By the way--the exact quote from the Zimmerman medical report is:

"2. Broken Nose~ We discussed that it is likely broken, but does not appear to have septal devialion. The swelling and black e.yes are typical of this injury. "

(That's a copy and paste from the PDF)

Since there's nothing they could do for it, there's really no reason to get an x-ray, since x-rays cost so much. You'll also find it listed as "nasal bones closed fracture" in the box.

Too bad Zimmerman wasn't smart enough to get it documented.He refused to see a specialist against the advice of the PA.Too much trouble, I guess.

Yeah. Funny that. A man who didn't think he'd done anything legally wrong didn't bother to demand x-rays and MRI's and everything else to document it. A man who just trusted the system because that's what he believed.

I've done much the same thing in my life, I learned the hard way, it's too bad George has to learn this way.

Incorrect. It is the code used for future reference so they know what wound/injury etc. they are talking about. There is no code for 'possibly broken nose'.

The diagnosis by the licensed physician says 'likely' broken nose. When/if he testifies at trial, he's going to say it was 'likely', not 'definitely/conclusively' broken.I'm glad you agree that we should trust the licensed physician's words.

I've had broken noses before. You can bet your damn life I'd want it looked it - it hurts like hell. It hurts to talk, it hurts to breathe. George didn't seem all that bothered. Maybe he just has a high threshold for pain.

Do you think the criteria for being in fear of great bodily harm or death in the midst of being assaulted is that you have 100% guarantee that your nose is broken? Surely if a doctor and emt think it is likely broken, we can see it is swollen and know he had black eyes, we can assume that in the moment of the assault George believed it had been broken. Isn't the real question whether or not he reasonably believed it?

Forgot to add, that the screams definitely clue us in that he was in fear for life, on top of his physical injuries.

From the second part I'd assume you've seen the reenactment, yet from the first it seems as if you haven't. I'm colorblind (actually more "color deficient" than anything) and I can see the dark area under his eyes. Those dark areas are "black eyes." Watch the reenactment video - they're very evident.

Or just read the medical report that says GZ has black eyes resulting from his broken nose.

I guess you haven't read the Constitution. No one can be compelled to testify against themselves, not even at a SYG hearing. The defense has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that self defense applies. That does not mean the defendant must testify. It simply means his attorney must present evidence that convinces the judge that he's immune from prosecution due to self defense.

I think he should do the SYG hearing. If nothing else, it will get out the Prosecution's working theory and the evidence they using to support their claims. It would be the first truly official record and testimony would be locked into place in the event of a trial.

Frankly, the only things I see different from the SPD investigation and that of the SAO are:Dee Dee, who wasn't available to themThe FBI reports which found there is no racism in GZ's background, which was not available to them either The Fulton-Martin's dispute that it is TM crying for help on that 911 which can be negated by the FBI and their report that the voice is inconclusive due to the quality of the recording.

I don't think the parents will cancel each other out though. I think that Sybrina Fulton would win that one. Her son is dead. IMO, everything Robert Zimmerman Sr. says will come with a taint since his son is the one on trial.

Plus, it would give MOM time, if necessary, to counteract whatever he feels he needs to if it goes to trial.

I think it will go to trial. I don't think that, given the situation, any judge would decide that GZ walks free. They are elected officials. I assume that whomever would want to stay in that capacity. GZ walking out of the courthouse a free man is a ticket to early retirement, IMO.

And then there is the outcry... Scott and Corey have an agenda to fulfill.

Doing the SYG hearing seems like a no-brainer, right? I mean, it's basically a freeroll. If he wins, the immunity is granted, no criminal trial, no civil trial. Worst case scenario is a criminal trial...which is where he'd be anyway without an SYG hearing.

I do think there's a downside, however: it forces the defense to show their cards. DebFrmHell - the SYG hearing doesn't force the prosecution to do anything at all - all the prosecution has to do is show the judge the evidence is at best inconclusive and that there's not enough evidence to say a trial isn't necessary.

No, the burden is on the defense to prove by a preponderance of evidence that stand your ground immunity applies. The defense is the one that has to trot out their working theory to see how it plays.

Would O'Mara put George on the stand and make him testify under oath as to what happened? If SYG immunity isn't granted and there is any inconsistency in George's testimony...ouch.

George and his own statements are a major body of evidence in the case. I'm wondering if the judge would grant immunity without testimony from the only living person that knows what happened.

I guess the downside is more than out-weighed by the upside of winning the SYG hearing - it's like getting a free lottery draw to a 'get out of jail free' card. So my guess is that MOM will eventually file for the hearing, but I think it would be a calculated, risk vs reward move, not a slam-dunk automatic filing.

All of the relevant statutes, case law, and jury instructions are here.

I'm not going to repeat it all, but read the source documents because inaccurate statements here about the the law will be deleted. I don't mean the validity of arguments one side might make, that's a matter of opinion, but the actual law -- which is clear.

Suffice it to say, the first section of the aggressor statute, 776.041, concerning forcible felonies, does not apply to this case because George Zimmerman is not charged with an independent forcible felony. A multiple of Florida cases and the state's jury instructions state this. See, Dennis v. State, Martinez v. State, Johnson v. Stateand Giles v. State.

An aggressor is someone who initially provokes the use of physical force against himself. Provoking fear is not the test. And the provocation has to be contemporaneous with the victim's use of force against him.

Quote

Specifically, section 776.041 subsection (2) precludes the initial aggressor from asserting self-defense where he or she is the individual who provoked the use of force" contemporaneously to the actions of the victim to which the defendant claims self-defense.

Even if Zimmerman were the aggressor under the aggressor statute, 776.041, he could respond with deadly force to the victim's use of force against him, if:

Quote

Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant;

The Florida Supreme Court amended and clarified the instruction on the justifiable use of deadly force in March 2008......See In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases ;Report No. 2007-3, 976 So. 2d 1081, 1087 (Fla. 2008) (expressly stating the "forcible felony" instruction is to be given only if the defendant is charged with an independent forcible felony). The 2010 version is here.

Also, in order for Trayvon to have been justified in his use of non-deadly force against Zimmerman, he had to reasonably believe he was in danger of an imminent attack by Zimmerman. He can't just have been afraid because he was unsure what Zimmerman up to. Uncertainty of what Zimmerman was up to is not a belief Zimmerman was about to attack him. Section 776.012

Quote

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force.

If Zimmerman did not do anything to provoke Martin's assault, then stand your ground applies:

Quote

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Once George Zimmerman introduces some evidence of self-defense and is entitled to a jury instruction, he has no other burden of proof. The state must disprove self-defense by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. From Stieh v. State(2011):

Quote

It was the State's burden to overcome Stieh's theory of self-defense and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Stieh was not acting lawfully when he stabbed the victim. See Behanna, 985 So. 2d at 555. As noted by this court in Jenkins, "self-defense cases are intensely fact-specific." 942 So. 2d at 916. But where the evidence " leaves room for two or more inferences of fact, at least one of which is consistent with the defendant's hypothesis of innocence, [it] is not legally sufficient to make a case for the jury." Fowler, 921 So. 2d at 712 .

Also on the burden of proof: At a pre-trial stand your ground hearing, GZ has the burden of proving SYG applies by a preponderance of the evidence.<SNIP>

Txs for all this. Question for you - in your experience, would George need to testify at the SYG hearing? And follow-up question, if he did testify at the SYG hearing, could his testimony be used in the criminal trial?

Since there's nothing they could do for it, there's really no reason to get an x-ray, since x-rays cost so much. You'll also find it listed as "nasal bones closed fracture" in the box.

This is George after the shooting.

I see one small cut on the bridge of his nose. Doesn't look broken. Doesn't look swollen. No puffy eyes, no black eyes. I guess that might come in the next day or so, but you'd think they'd take pictures as his face started looking worse - he was at the police station for several days after the shooting.

I mean, is this seriously someone that was punched in the face 'dozens of times'?